Worst NFL Hall of Famers

[sluggermatt15]

I've seen Marcus Allen and Doak Walker on these lists before and I disagree. Both are HOFers for me. The two I actually have trouble with are Canadeo and Trippi. Trippi did have the big championship game in '47 while I don't think Canadeo has anything comparable. I would guess both are getting credit for versatility especially passing as both served as their teams' primary passers for periods of time. They probably get credit for being two-way players as well, but given the years they played, I think its safe to assume they played a lot less defense than similar backs would have played a decade earlier. Not to pile on, but if Canadeo wasn't in the HOF and he turned up on the HOVG ballot, I'm not sure how well he would do.

I agree about Walker and Allen. Doak Walker was Barry Sanders before Barry Sanders. He retired very young and honestly could have continued to rack up all the accolades.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I agree about Walker and Allen. Doak Walker was Barry Sanders before Barry Sanders. He retired very young and honestly could have continued to rack up all the accolades.

I was sold on Walker from watching old Tel Ra highlights. He always seems be making a play as a runner, receiver, passer on the HB option, kick returner, and kicker, but he was the first name I ever saw come up in this context. This bleacher report article on the subject mentions it https://bleacherreport.com/articles/121 ... of-fame-is. The quote is:

Sports Illustrated’s Dr. Z called Doak Walker the least deserving player in Canton.

I could never find the primary source, but its something I remember reading years ago.

[sheajets]

He's not in yet, but I'm not going to love Frank Gore. A good running back with insane longevity. Only one truly GREAT season 2006. 4th all time in yards from scrimmage. Still if you look at the top 30 yards from scrimmage guys in NFL history...Gore is probably the worst of all of them. And he's 4th

Weird player to evaluate

[ChrisBabcock]

He's not in yet, but I'm not going to love Frank Gore. A good running back with insane longevity. Only one truly GREAT season 2006. 4th all time in yards from scrimmage. Still if you look at the top 30 yards from scrimmage guys in NFL history...Gore is probably the worst of all of them. And he's 4th

Weird player to evaluate

Maybe I'm in the minority but I'll defend Frank Gore for the Hall. Is he a compiler? Sure. But to be very good for THAT long at one of the most punishing positions in the sport is saying something. He played in 14 or more games 15 out of his 16 seasons. 9 1000 yard rushing seasons... in an era that's getting harder to do that for a running back.

[sluggermatt15]

He's not in yet, but I'm not going to love Frank Gore. A good running back with insane longevity. Only one truly GREAT season 2006. 4th all time in yards from scrimmage. Still if you look at the top 30 yards from scrimmage guys in NFL history...Gore is probably the worst of all of them. And he's 4th

Weird player to evaluate

Maybe I'm in the minority but I'll defend Frank Gore for the Hall. Is he a compiler? Sure. But to be very good for THAT long at one of the most punishing positions in the sport is saying something. He played in 14 or more games 15 out of his 16 seasons. 9 1000 yard rushing seasons... in an era that's getting harder to do that for a running back.

I think what you're saying is Gore is consistent, but not outstanding. He made five Pro Bowls and was never a consensus all-pro or a consensus all-conference choice. Also, 1,000 yard seasons are not impressive considering he played in a 16-game season... look at his numbers, he averaged 66.4 rushing yards per game for his career. That does not even rank in the Top 50 of all-time (he's 57th). Gore only topped 1,500 rushing yards in a season once (2006; his second year).

To me, he looks like Jim Marshall, who is light on accolades but played for a long time, and who is not in Canton. At least Marshall was a consensus second-team all-pro once and he won an NFL title in 1969.

[rewing84]

So a guy who scored 1699 points stenerud is not a hall of famer

[Bob Gill]

So a guy who scored 1699 points stenerud is not a hall of famer

No way. 1700 is the cutoff.

[Bryan]

I think what you're saying is Gore is consistent, but not outstanding. He made five Pro Bowls and was never a consensus all-pro or a consensus all-conference choice. Also, 1,000 yard seasons are not impressive considering he played in a 16-game season... look at his numbers, he averaged 66.4 rushing yards per game for his career. That does not even rank in the Top 50 of all-time (he's 57th). Gore only topped 1,500 rushing yards in a season once (2006; his second year).

To me, he looks like Jim Marshall, who is light on accolades but played for a long time, and who is not in Canton. At least Marshall was a consensus second-team all-pro once and he won an NFL title in 1969.

Gore reminds me of Eddie Murray (not the kicker). I remember when Murray retired, only 3 players had 3000 hits and 500 HRs....Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Eddie Murray! He played for some really good Orioles teams early in his career, once led the AL in HRs during the strike-shortened 1981 season, but other than that never really accomplished anything spectacular. He played 1B and eventually was a DH. And then when Murray announced his retirement, everyone had to pretend that he was a great player because the stats said he was in the elite class of Mays & Aaron. The funny part was that even Murray himself didn't want to go along with the charade...he seemed nonplussed by all the attention. I give him credit for that. It's like he punched the clock, did his job, then punched out 21 years later.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

How good was Walt Keisling (randomly picked name)? It's really difficult to say because none of us actually saw him. I guess if you simply look at a stat sheet...

We are the PFRA where the R stands for research. If we didn't talk about players we never saw play, we'd lose a lot of history as generations die off. It's a big assumption to say those of us commenting in this thread "just looked at a stat sheet". Walt Kiesling is a good example of a player that doing some analysis leads to question marks. He's on the '20s all-decade team, but that seems to be a team back-filled with a lot of coaches. Did the voters in the '60s see any of them play? If they did, several historians don't think they did a great job on that era, but it was more omissions than putting in too many.

I commented on a couple players from the '40s/'50s and one from the '80s. Those eras aren't my speciality, but for the players before my time I've seen footage, I've read a lot, and I'm aware of who their contemporaries were - that's what I considered. I think others did similarly.

As for Charley Trippi - he apparently could do pretty much anything. Special teams, halfback, quarterback, defensive back. Jim Thorpe called Trippi the greatest football player he ever saw, and well, let's just say there is no higher credibility that I could think of than Jim Thorpe's endorsement.

I mentioned Trippi had a great championship game in '47 and that he was versatile, but I don't see him or Canadeo as HOFers. Trippi would be solid HOVG for me, Canadeo less solid. The quote from Thorpe is great, but what's the context? Thorpe wasn't his contemporary as a player or coach. By '47, he wouldn't have had much involvement in pro football at all. When did he see Trippi play?

He had 3 seasons with postseason honors and probably a couple seasons where he was close. He played for a bad Cardinals team in the '50s and they tried hm at QB, but he really didn't excel there. I like Towler better, Hoernschemeyer and probably a few other of his contemporaries who aren't in the HOF.

You make a great point about research - yes, that is really good to bring up. We can learn a lot more about these players through research and I fully agree with that. My point was really more about context - it's really difficult to say what ingredients made a player great in the 1920s/30s. We just weren't there, so we're looking at the game through a different lens. We likely watch/approach/analyze the game much differently than somebody watching in a previous era. I'll be the first to admit I don't understand what attributes made a player great in the NFL single-wing offense as opposed to the run and shoot. Or what players were better blocking/defending/creating opportunities in the single wing. We just didn't experience the game at that level because we're watching it in our own era. We can research it, but it still doesn't fully put us into that era.

I don't know if that makes sense, but that was my point - I wasn't trying to imply that general PFRA members were simply looking at stats - that was attempting to understand how somebody who didn't see Troy Aikman might not think he was a Hall of Famer, as apparently a younger journalist implied. So, if a kid who never saw Aikman play thinks he might not be a Hall of Fame caliber QB when to all of us who saw him, he clearly was, well, maybe some of these early HOFs we tend to question might have been clear HOFs to fans watching in the 20s and 30s.

The omissions we discuss - and I've mentioned this a couple of times - I think a lot of that simply comes from the date the HOF opened. So, in 1963, 64, 65, they're inducting some people who would have been inducted in the 40s or 50s and just starting there. By the time you get to the 70s, you have to start inducting the 60s Packers, the Noll Steelers, but you can only induct so many at a time. Johnny Unitas wasn't inducted until 1979. Don Maynard didn't make it until the late 1980s. A lot of backlog and they still had to get newer retirees in like Roger Staubach. So, I think that's why a lot of guys got left out from some previous eras and some guys who maybe aren't at that level can get in today. Because they're only allowing one senior candidate per year. Sammy Baugh, Ernie Nevers, Bronko - all those guys would have been at or nearing the senior category in 1963.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Thanks @GameBeforeTheMoney. Appreciate the reply. You make good points too - the game has evolved over the years for sure. One example of an easy mistake to make is to undervalue punting. There was a time teams punted on early downs to play for field position and it was the responsibility of one of the backs. So someone like Verne Lewellen runs the risk of being undervalued when we look through a modern lens.

So, sure some of the HOFers may be in there for reasons we don't appreciate now. If you look at @Bryan's list - its pretty good - pretty conservative (no Trippi, no Doak, etc.), kind of boring (except for Pollard) . I think sometimes when articles come out they need to attract eyeballs and you do that by mentioning someone well known/famous like Aikman or Namath. I do feel its fine for us to question HOF selections though - I actually got a lot out of this thread and others like it over the years.

***
I'll throw out a name to keep the thread going - Roger Craig. Among the modern senior candidates I actually like him - he was a key player on great teams and did well at both RB positions. I think if he had gotten in this past year though, some may have actually immediately put him on this list